Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
238
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
238 results for “carbon flux”
Baltimore Ecosystem Study: Soil atmosphere fluxes of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane, 1998 - ongoing
The Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES) established a network of long-term permanent biogeochemical study plots in 1998. These plots provide long-term data on vegetation, soil and hydrologic processes in the key ecosystem types within the urban ecosystem. The network of study plots includes forest plots (upland and riparian), chosen to represent the range of forest conditions in the area and grass plots (to represent home lawns). Plots are instrumented with lysimeters (drainage and tension) to sample soil solution chemistry, time domain reflectometry probes to measure soil moisture, dataloggers to measure and record soil temperature, and trace gas flux chambers to measure the flux of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane from soil to the atmosphere. Measurements of in situ nitrogen mineralization, nitrification and denitrification were made at approximately monthly intervals from Fall 1998 - Fall 2000. Detailed vegetation characterization (all layers) was done in summer 1998 and 2015. Data from these plots has been published in Groffman et al. (2006, 2009), Groffman and Pouyat (2009), Savva et al. (2010), Costa and Groffman (2013), Duncan et al. (2013), Waters et al. (2014), Ni and Groffman (2018), Templeton et al. (2019). Literature Cited Costa, K.H. and P.M. Groffman. 2013. Factors regulating net methane flux in urban forests and grasslands. Soil Science Society of America Journal 77:850 - 855. Duncan, J. M., L. E. Band, and P. M. Groffman. 2013. Towards closing the watershed nitrogen budget: Spatial and temporal scaling of denitrification. Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences 118:1-5; DOI: 10.1002/jgrg.20090 Groffman PM, Pouyat RV, Cadenasso ML, Zipperer WC, Szlavecz K, Yesilonis IC,. Band LE and Brush GS. 2006. Land use context and natural soil controls on plant community composition and soil nitrogen and carbon dynamics in urban and rural forests. Forest Ecology and Management 236:177-192. Groffman, P.M., C.O. Williams, R.V. Pouyat, L.E. Band and I.C.
Surface carbon, water and energy fluxes measured by eddy covariance at 3 sites within the Alaska Peatlands Experiment and Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest
These data are simultaneous and continuous measurements of carbon, water and energy fluxes of the terrestrial landscape. These fluxes are major regulatory drivers of the boreal climate system and form key linkages and feedbacks between the land surface, the atmosphere and the oceans. At the APEX project site, within Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest, this monitoring is repeated across a chronosequence of permafrost degradation; the Black Spruce site is an area of stable permafrost with intact black spruce forest (APEX gamma site), the Thermokarst site is an active thermokarst zone with considerable tree mortality (APEX betaSW site), the Fen site is within a stable treeless fen with deep active layer depth (APEX apexcon,low, and ele sites). The main variables being monitored are the instananeous fluxes of CO2, water vapor and surface energy (shortwave, longwave and net radiation), secondary variables included photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), air and soil temperatures, rainfall, snow depth, soil moisture content, wind direction and speed, and average atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and H2O through the year.
Methane and carbon dioxide flux in a tidal freshwater marsh recovering from three years of experimental seawater additions and following the Hurricane Irma storm surge
Methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) flux rates were measured in a tidal freshwater marsh using static flux chambers. The experimental field site, SALTEx (Seawater Addition Long-Term Experiment) is part of the Georgia Coastal Ecosystems (GCE) LTER and is located on the Altamaha River, GA. The marsh was experimentally dosed with brackish water additions for 3 years, from 2014 – 2017. There are three treatments groups (Press, Pulse, and Fresh) and two control groups (with and without siding on the plots), each with six replicates. Press treatment plots received brackish water throughout the year, Pulse plots received brackish water in September and October and fresh water the rest of the year, Fresh plots received fresh river water throughout the year. The two control groups, one with siding on the plots and one without, received no water addition manipulations. All dosing ceased in January 2018, at which point we began to study the recovery of the marsh. In this study, the Hurricane Irma Rapid Grant evaluated additional effects of the Hurricane Irma storm surge that occurred in October 2017. Greenhouse gas measurements were taken seasonally beginning in March 2018 and ending in March 2019.
Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest: Soil-atmosphere fluxes of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane on Watershed 1 and Bear Brook, 2002-2024
Soil atmosphere fluxes of the trace gases; carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) have been measured at several locations at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest (HBEF) including 1) the "freeze" study reference plots that provide contrast between stands dominated (80%) by sugar maple versus yellow birch and low and high elevation areas, 2) the Bear Brook Watershed where trace gas sampling is coordinated with long-term monitoring of microbial biomass and activity and 3) watershed 1 where trace gas sampling locations were co-located with long-term microbial biomass and activity monitoring sites that are located near a subset of the lysimeter sites established for the calcium addition study on this watershed. This dataset contains the Watershed 1 and Bear Brook data. Freeze plot trace gas can be found in: https://portal.edirepository.org/nis/mapbrowse?scope=knb-lter-hbr&identifier=251. These data were gathered as part of the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study (HBES). The HBES is a collaborative effort at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, which is operated and maintained by the USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
Global Carbon Budget 2023, surface ocean fugactiy of CO2 (fCO2) and air-sea CO2 flux of individual global ocean biogechemical models and surface ocean fCO2-based data-products
<p><strong>Surface ocean fugacity of CO2 (fCO2) and air-sea CO2 flux data from individual Global Ocean Biogeochemistry Models (GOBMs) and surface ocean fCO2-based data-products (fCO2-products).</strong><br>There are three types of files: (1) one file per fCO2-product with gridded fields and regionally-integrated CO2 flux time-series, (2) one file per GOBM with gridded fields, and (3) one file with the regionally-integrated time-series for the GOBMs. </p><p><strong>Note: </strong>These provided gridded outputs from fCO2-based data-products and GOBMs are regridded datasets, without adjustments. <strong>The best estimates of the annual global ocean carbon sink, based on the native grids of fCO2-products and GOBMs and with the adjustments described in the Global Carbon Budget 2023 (https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023), are available in the Global Carbon Budget 2023 spreadsheet.</strong></p><p>The regionally-integrated time-series are as provided by the contributing groups, i.e. integrated from their native grids. In order to reproduce Figure 13 of the Global Carbon Budget 2023 paper (https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023), the river flux adjustment needs to be added to the CO2 flux estimated from the data-products (North: 0.14 GtC yr-1, Tropics: 0.42 GtC yr-1, South: 0.09 GtC yr-1, see GCB 2023 paper, section 2.5.1). The sum of the regional fluxes may differ from the global estimates as reported in the GCB spreadsheet, because some adjustments were applied only for global fluxes.</p><p><strong>What is in the files?</strong></p><p>(1) The files for the fCO2-based data-products contain the following variables (temporal resolution: monthly):<br><br>fgco2_reg: Regionally integrated air-sea CO2 flux (positive downward), monthly, for regions: north, tropics, south<br>fgco2: Flux density of the total air-sea CO2 flux (positive downward), dimensions: time, latitude, longitude<br>sfco2: Surface ocean fCO2, dimensions: time, latitude, longitude<br>area: Area per pixel, dimensions: latitude, longitude<br>area_reg: Total surface ocean area covered by native grid, for global, north, tropics, south</p><p>(2) The files for the GOBMs contain the following fields, for simulation A ('contemporary simulation', including effects of rising CO2, climate change and variability) and simulation B ('control simulation', constant CO2, no climate change and variability). Temporal resolution: monthly</p><p>fgco2: Flux density of the total air-sea CO2 flux (positive downward), dimensions: time, latitude, longitude<br>sfco2: Surface ocean fCO2, dimensions: time, latitude, longitude<br>area: Area per pixel, dimensions: latitude, longitude<br><br>(3) One file 'GCB-2023_OceanModel_RegionalBreakdown_1959-2022.nc' with the regionally-integrated CO2 flux time-series for all individual GOBMs, and for simulations A and B. Temporal resolution: annual.</p><p><strong>Fair data use statement:</strong><br>The data and model output provided on this site are freely available and were furnished by individual scientists who encourage their use.<br><strong>Citation:</strong> Please cite the Global Carbon Budget 2023 (Friedlingstein et al., 2023, ESSD, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023) for all data. In addition, please also cite the corresponding original reference for each dataset that has been used - see Table 4 in Global Carbon Budget 2023 for references of all the individual Global Ocean Biogeochemical Models and fCO2-based data-products. Further, for an overview of the Global Ocean Biogeochemical Model output, you may find it useful to cite Hauck et al. (2020, Frontiers, doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.571720).<br><strong>Acknowledgement:</strong> Please add the following text in the acknowledgement of your paper: "We acknowledge the Global Carbon Project, which is responsible for the Global Carbon Budget and we thank the ocean modeling and fCO2-mapping groups for producing and making available their model and fCO2-product output."<br><strong>Co-authorship: </strong>An invitation of co-authorship to the contributing groups is encouraged if these data are the central data set of the publication.</p><p>Besides the surface fCO2 and air-sea CO2 flux data that is made available open access, we make<strong> additional 3D output</strong> from the Global Ocean Biogeochemical models (GCB-ocean) available upon request and with its own data policy. Please refer to the Global Carbon Budget website for these additional data: https://globalcarbonbudgetdata.org/closed-access-requests.html</p>
Carbon fluxes data over Indian spring wheat agro-ecosystem
<p>The data consists of the following:</p> <ol> <li>Site-scale carbon flux data for an IARI experimental wheat site for the growing season 2013–2014 in New Delhi (28°40' N, 77°12' E).</li> <li>The simulation data in NetCDF format comprises carbon fluxes such as GPP, NPP, Ra, Rh, and NEE.</li> <li>Harvested wheat area of spring wheat across the Indian wheat-growing regions.</li> <li>Site-scale NEP (gC/m2/mon) measured at Meerut (29°05′33″N, 77°41′53″E; growing season 2009-2010) and Saharanpur (29° 52′ 19.139″ N and 077° 34′ 01.621″ E; growing season 2014-15) extracted from published work (Patel et al., 2011; Patel et al., 2021, respectively)</li> </ol>
Dataset related to the publication "Temporal dynamics and environmental controls of carbon dioxide and methane fluxes measured by the eddy covariance method over a boreal river"
<h2>Summary</h2> <p>Dataset related to the publication "Temporal dynamics and environmental controls of carbon dioxide and methane fluxes measured by the eddy covariance method over a boreal river" by Aki Vähä, Timo Vesala, Sofya Guseva, Anders Lindroth, Andreas Lorke, Sally MacIntyre, and Ivan Mammarella (2024), published in Biogeosciences.</p> <h2>Materials and Methods</h2> <h3>Measurement site</h3> <p>The experiment was conducted on a floating platform on the River Kitinen in northern Finland. The measurements took place from 1 June to 2 October, 2018.</p> <p>The River Kitinen is 235 km long and has a catchment area of 7672 km2. The catchment area consists mostly of managed boreal forest with Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and Norway spruce (Picea abies) as the main tree species, wetlands of which a large portion is drained, small streams and rivers, some low mountains and a few small settlements. The experiment site (67.37◦ N, 26.62◦ E, 173 m above sea level) was located next to the Finnish Meteorological Institute’s research and weather station in Tähtelä. At the experiment location the river is 180 m wide and forms a straight section extending approximately 600 m upstream and 1000 m downstream from the site. The direction of the river at the site is roughly north-northwest–south-southeast and it flows towards the south. The mean annual discharge, measured at the closest power plant downstream, is 103 m3 s−1. The maximum depth at the site is 7 m. The River Kitinen’s Strahler stream order at the site is 5. The floating platform was located about 70 m from the eastern river bank where the water depth was 4.5 m.</p> <h3>Eddy covariance</h3> <p>The eddy covariance system measuring water-atmosphere turbulent fluxes was mounted on a mast on the southern side of the platform. This installation consisted of an ultrasonic anemometer (uSonic-3 Scientific, METEK Meteorologische Messtechnik GmbH, Elmshorn, Germany) for measuring the wind speed in three Cartesian coordinates and the sonic temperature, an enclosed-path gas analyser (LI-7200RS, LI-COR Biosciences, Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska, USA) for measuring carbon dioxide and water vapour mole fractions, and a closed-path gas analyser (G1301-f, Picarro, Inc., Santa Clara, California, USA) for measuring methane and water vapour mole fractions. The centre of the sonic anemometer was 1.82 m above the water surface. An inclinometer (DOG2 micro-electro-mechanical system, Measurement Specialties, Inc., Hampton, Virginia, USA) was used for measuring the pitch and roll of the platform. Eddy covariance fluxes were calculated using the EddyUH software (Mammarella et al. 2016), following the state of art methodologies (Sabbatini et al. 2018, Nemitz et al. 2018).</p> <h3>Auxiliary measurements</h3> <p>Ambient air temperature and relative humidity were measured with a Rotronic HC2-S3C03 probe (Rotronic AG, Bassersdorf, Germany), mounted inside a Young model 41003 (R. M. Young Company, Traverse City, Michigan, USA) multi-plate radiation shield on the platform’s north-eastern corner. Air temperature and relative humidity were available only after 15th of June. Before that, the sonic temperature and humidity calculated from χH2O, measured with the LI-7200RS, were used instead. Atmospheric pressure and precipitation were measured at the Tähtelä weather station. Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) in water was measured with two LI-192 sensors (LI-COR Biosciences, Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska, USA) and one LI-193 sensor (LI-COR). The sensors were hanging from wires at 0.3 m, 0.65 m and 1.0 m depths on a beam on the southern side of the platform. Measurements of water side CO2 partial pressure (pCO2) were done by using an off-axis integrated cavity output spectrometer (Ultraportable Greenhouse Gas Analyzer – UGGA), Los Gatos Research, Inc., Santa Clara, California, USA) that was connected to the headspace of an equilibrator consisting of a floating Plexiglas chamber.</p> <p>A water temperature chain was set up 100 m upstream of the platform. It consisted of five temperature loggers of the type RBR Solo (RBR Ltd. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada). The loggers were placed on a taut line mooring at depths of 0.35 m, 1.35 m, 2.35 m, 3.35 m and 4.35 m (6 June to 17 June) and 0.07 m, 1.05 m, 2.05 m, 3.05 m and 4.05 m (17 June onwards). The topmost measurement was used as the surface temperature. The water flow velocity was measured with a acoustic Doppler velocimeter (Nortek Vector, Nortek AS, Rud, Norway) which was installed on a beam on the north-western corner of the platform, facing down (Guseva et al., 2021). The depth of the measurements was 0.4 m below the surface.</p>
Global Carbon Budget 2024, surface ocean fugacity of CO2 (fCO2) and air-sea CO2 flux of individual global ocean biogeochemical models and surface ocean fCO2-based data-products
<p><strong>v2 update: </strong></p> <ul> <li>update to data in UoEX-UEPFFNU fCO2-product</li> <li>fix of lat-lon issue in Jena-MLS fCO2-product</li> <li>minor fixes to metadata in fCO2-products</li> </ul> <p><br>The v2 data is used for the final published version of the Global Carbon Budget 2024.</p> <p>-----------------</p> <p><strong>Surface ocean fugacity of CO2 (fCO2) and air-sea CO2 flux data from individual Global Ocean Biogeochemistry Models (GOBMs) and surface ocean fCO2-based data-products (fCO2-products).</strong><br>There are three types of files: (1) one file per fCO2-product with gridded fields and regionally-integrated CO2 flux time-series, (2) one file per GOBM with gridded fields, and (3) one file with the regionally-integrated time-series for the GOBMs. </p> <p><strong>Note: </strong>These provided gridded outputs from fCO2-based data-products and GOBMs are regridded datasets, without adjustments. <strong>The best estimates of the annual global ocean carbon sink, based on the native grids of fCO2-products and GOBMs and with the adjustments described in the Global Carbon Budget 2024 (https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-519), are available in the Global Carbon Budget 2024 spreadsheet.</strong></p> <p>The regionally-integrated time-series are as provided by the contributing groups, i.e. integrated from their native grids. In order to reproduce Figure 14 of the Global Carbon Budget 2024 paper (https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-519), the river flux adjustment needs to be added to the CO2 flux estimated from the fCO2-products (North: 0.14 GtC yr-1, Tropics: 0.42 GtC yr-1, South: 0.09 GtC yr-1, see GCB 2024 paper). The sum of the regional fluxes may differ from the global estimates as reported in the GCB spreadsheet, because some adjustments were applied only for global fluxes.</p> <p><strong>What is in the files?</strong></p> <p>(1) The files for the fCO2-based data-products contain the following variables (temporal resolution: monthly):<br><br>fgco2_reg: Regionally integrated air-sea CO2 flux (positive downward), monthly, for regions: global, north, tropics, south<br>fgco2: Flux density of the total air-sea CO2 flux (positive downward), dimensions: time, latitude, longitude<br>sfco2: Surface ocean fCO2, dimensions: time, latitude, longitude<br>area: Area per pixel, dimensions: latitude, longitude<br>area_reg: Total surface ocean area covered by native grid, for global, north, tropics, south</p> <p>(2) The files for the GOBMs contain the following fields, for simulation A ('contemporary simulation', including effects of rising CO2, climate change and variability) and simulation B ('control simulation', constant CO2, no climate change and variability). Temporal resolution: monthly</p> <p>fgco2: Flux density of the total air-sea CO2 flux (positive downward), dimensions: time, latitude, longitude<br>sfco2: Surface ocean fCO2, dimensions: time, latitude, longitude<br>area: Area per pixel, dimensions: latitude, longitude</p> <p>(3) One file 'GCB-2024_OceanModel_RegionalBreakdown_1959-2023.nc' with the regionally-integrated CO2 flux time-series for all individual GOBMs, and for simulations A and B. Regions: North, tropics, south. Temporal resolution: annual.</p> <p><strong>Fair data use statement:</strong><br>The data and model output provided on this site are freely available and were furnished by individual scientists who encourage their use.<br><strong>Citation:</strong> Please cite the Global Carbon Budget 2024 (Friedlingstein et al., 2024, ESSD, https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-519) for all data. In addition, please also cite the corresponding original reference for each dataset that has been used - see Table 4 in Global Carbon Budget 2024 for references of all the individual Global Ocean Biogeochemical Models and fCO2-based data-products. Further, for an overview of the Global Ocean Biogeochemical Model output, you may find it useful to cite Hauck et al. (2020, Frontiers, doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.571720).</p> <p><strong>Acknowledgement:</strong> Please add the following text in the acknowledgement of your paper: "We acknowledge the Global Carbon Project, which is responsible for the Global Carbon Budget and we thank the ocean modeling and fCO2-mapping groups for producing and making available their model and fCO2-product output."<br><strong>Co-authorship: </strong>An invitation of co-authorship to the contributing groups is encouraged if these data are the central data set of the publication.</p> <p>Besides the surface fCO2 and air-sea CO2 flux data that is made available open access, we make<strong> additional 3D output</strong> from the Global Ocean Biogeochemical models (GCB-ocean) available upon request and with its own data policy. Please refer to the Global Carbon Budget website for these additional data: https://globalcarbonbudgetdata.org/closed-access-requests.html</p>
Monthly global ocean carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide flux data (2000–2019)
<p>This data product reports simulated monthly global ocean–atmosphere fluxes of carbonyl sulfide (OCS) and carbon disulfide (CS2) at 0.5° × 0.5° resolution (equivalent to 55 km × 55 km at the equator) between January 2000 and December 2019.</p> <p>Data are contained in two NetCDF files:</p> <ul> <li>ocs-flux-monthly-2000-to-2019.nc: Monthly global ocean OCS fluxes, 2000–2019</li> <li>cs2-flux-monthly-2000-to-2019.nc: Monthly global ocean CS2 fluxes, 2000–2019</li> </ul> <p>Data characteristics</p> <ul> <li>Version: 1.0.1 (2025-04-07)</li> <li>Spatial coverage: global</li> <li>Spatial resolution: 0.5° longitude × 0.5° latitude</li> <li>Temporal coverage: 2000-01-15 thru 2019-12-15 (nominal timestamps fall on the 15th day of each month)</li> <li>Temporal resolution: monthly</li> </ul> <p>Related manuscript</p> <p>Sun, W., Merder, J., Zhao, G., Lennartz, S. T., & Michalak, A. M. (2025). Tropical sources dominate the ocean carbonyl sulfide budget. Under consideration in <em>Global Biogeochemical Cycles.</em></p>
Data: Boreal forest soil carbon fluxes one year after a wildfire: Effects of burn severity and management
<p>2018 Boreal forest fires in Sweden: Measurements of soil CO2 and CH4 fluxes, soil microclimate and nutrient content during the first growing season after a wildfire, from forest sites impacted by different fire severity (tree mortality) and post-fire management.</p> <p> </p> <p>Data used in: Boreal forest soil carbon fluxes one year after a wildfire: Effects of burn severity and management; Julia Kelly, Theresa S. Ibáñez, Cristina Santín, Stefan H. Doerr, Marie-Charlotte Nilsson, Thomas Holst, Anders Lindroth, Natascha Kljun; Global Change Biology, 27, 4181-4195, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15721</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Data and code from: Climate-based prediction of carbon fluxes from deadwood in Australia
This repository contains the code for the publication 'Climate-based prediction of carbon fluxes from deadwood in Australia'.
UFLUX 100m half-yearly carbon, water, and energy fluxes in Europe in 2018
<div> <h3>UFLUX Ensemble Europe100m6monthly (European 100 6-monthly) in 2018</h3> <p><strong>Overview</strong><br>The <strong>UFLUX ensemble dataset</strong> offers <strong>European fluxes at 100 m spatial resolution</strong>, generated using <strong>Deep Forest machine learning models</strong>. It integrates <strong>satellite-based Sentinel-2 vegetation proxies NIRv</strong> with <strong>ERA5 climate reanalysis</strong>, and is trained against <strong>ICOS eddy covariance observations</strong>. The UFLUX project includes five core flux components:</p> <ul> <li> <p>Gross Primary Production (<strong>GPP</strong>)</p> </li> <li> <p>Ecosystem Respiration (<strong>RECO</strong>)</p> </li> <li> <p>Net Ecosystem Exchange (<strong>NEE</strong>)</p> </li> <li> <p>Sensible Heat Flux (<strong>H</strong>)</p> </li> <li> <p>Latent Energy Flux (<strong>LE</strong>)</p> </li> </ul> <p><strong>Background and Methodology</strong><br>The <strong>Unified FLUXes (UFLUX)</strong> initiative is a data-driven, machine learning-based platform designed to upscale eddy covariance (EC) flux measurements from tower sites to the global scale. It aims to answer pressing questions about how effectively terrestrial ecosystems are managed under climate change.</p> <p>Key innovations of UFLUX include:</p> <ol> <li> <p><strong>Consistent Upscaling Framework</strong>: Harmonizes flux upscaling across spatial/temporal scales and multiple flux types (GPP, RECO, etc.) using deep decision tree-based methods, better suited than conventional neural networks for EC flux data.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>Hybrid Explainable ML</strong>: Combines black-box ML with ecological interpretability through residual learning, offering both predictive power and new scientific insight (UFLUXv2).</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>Uncertainty Quantification</strong>: Employs sampling space completeness to assess model uncertainty in a transparent, robust manner.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>Multisource Integration</strong>: Leverages complementary strengths of vegetation proxies (e.g., NIRv, SIF) and climate data (e.g., ERA5) to represent carbon dynamics more comprehensively than single-source approaches.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>Superior Gap-Filling</strong>: Originally developed as a global EC flux gap-filling tool, UFLUX improves accuracy by up to 30% and reduces uncertainty by as much as 70% compared to traditional methods.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>High Performance</strong>: Achieves strong predictive accuracy, with global-scale R² > 0.8 for RECO and ≈0.9 for GPP, while being computationally efficient enough to run on a standard laptop.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>Community Adoption</strong>: Already used by other global upscaling projects, highlighting its reliability and impact.</p> </li> </ol> <p><strong>Applications</strong><br>UFLUX is ideal for studying the interactions between land management, climate change, and carbon fluxes, particularly in improving global estimates of GPP and RECO by addressing biases in EC measurements.</p> <p><strong>Resources</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>UFLUX Website: <a href="https://github.com/soonyenju/uflux" target="_new" rel="noopener">https://sites.google.com/view/uflux</a></strong></li> <li> <p><strong>Code Repository</strong>: <a href="https://github.com/soonyenju/uflux" target="_new" rel="noopener">https://github.com/soonyenju/uflux</a></p> </li> <li> <p><strong>Technical & Descriptive Publication</strong>: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2024.2312266" target="_new" rel="noopener">https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2024.2312266</a></p> </li> </ul> </div>
Methane and carbon dioxide fluxes from vegetated and open water zones of lakes in the Peace-Athabasca Delta, Alberta, Canada, 2019
Shallow areas of lakes, known as littoral zones, emit disproportionately more methane than open water but are sometimes ignored in upscaled estimates of lake greenhouse gas emissions. Littoral zone coverage may be estimated through synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mapping of emergent aquatic vegetation, which only grows in water less than ~1.5 m deep. In an accompanying publication, we combine airborne SAR mapping with field measurements of littoral and open-water methane flux to assess the importance of littoral zones to landscape-scale methane emissions. This dataset contains the field measurements of chamber methane flux from vegetated littoral zones and open water used for the accompanying publication. Measurements come from 24 distinct sampling events of 15 lakes in the Peace-Athabasca Delta, Alberta, Canada in July through August, 2019. The dataset also includes within-lake locations, carbon dioxide measurements, simple characterizations of vegetation type, and associated limnological and meteorological measurements, when available: water and air temperature, water depth, wind speed and direction, and relative humidity.
Half-hourly gap-filled Northern Hemisphere lake and reservoir carbon flux and micrometeorology, 2006 - 2015
This archive accompanies the manuscript New insights into diel to interannual variation in carbon emissions from lakes and reservoirs We synthesize 171 site-months (and 3,832 site-hours) of high-frequency flux measurements to quantify the magnitudes and temporal variability of direct CO2 fluxes from 13 lakes and reservoirs in the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Constraining short- and long-term variability is necessary to improve detection of temporal changes of CO2 fluxes in response to natural and anthropogenic drivers. These data were collected based on a workshop and open call for eddy covariance observations over lakes organized by Ankur Desai (UW-Madison), Timo Vesala (U Helsinki), and Malgorzata Golub (DKIT).
Instantenous rates of ecosystem carbon fluxes: The influence of natural enemies on plant community composition and productivity
The purpose of this experiment is to determine the influences of natural enemies, including plant pathogenic fungi and insect pests, influence plant community composition, productivity, and diversity over time. The experiment is being conducted in an old field that is burned every other year. Within the old field, there are 8 blocks, and within each block there are 6 treatments: foliar fungicide, soil drench fungicide, foliar insecticide, mammal exclosure, the combination of all enemy suppression tactics (pesticides and mammal exclosure), and a nontreated control. The pesticides are applied repeatedly throughout the growing season. Within the plots, community productivity, species composition, percent cover, and pest damage are being quantified over time.
Dataset for "Soil fluxes of carbonyl sulfide (COS), carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide in a boreal forest in southern Finland"
<p>This is the dataset (ver. 2017.02.13) for the manuscript "Soil fluxes of carbonyl sulfide (COS), carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide in a boreal forest in southern Finland" submitted to the journal <em>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</em>.</p>
Data from: Constraining biospheric carbon dioxide fluxes by combined top-down and bottom-up approaches
<p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span>Acknowledgements.</span><span> </span><span>We would like to thank Martin Jung, Jakob A. Nelson, Sophia Walther, and the FLUXCOM team for their structural</span><br><span>support, feedback and discussion. The Authors would like to thank the producers of the Inversion data included in this study: Ingrid Luijkx</span><br><span>and Wouter Peters (CTE), Frederic Chevallier and the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS), Christian Roedenbeck (Jena</span><br><span>Carboscope sEXTocNEET), Yosuke Niwa (NISMON-CO2), and Liang Feng and Paul Palmer (UoE). This research was funded by the</span><br><span>European Research Council (ERC) Synergy Grant ’Understanding and modeling the Earth System with Machine Learning (USMILE)’</span><br><span>under the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No. 855187)</span></p> <p><br><span>This work used eddy covariance data acquired by the FLUXNET community and in particular by the following networks: AmeriFlux</span><br><span>(U.S. Department of Energy, Biological and Environmental Research, Terrestrial Carbon Program (DE-FG02-04ER63917 and DE-FG02</span>-<br><span>04ER63911)), AfriFlux, AsiaFlux, CarboAfrica, CarboEuropeIP, CarboItaly, CarboMont, ChinaFlux, Fluxnet-Canada (supported by CFCAS,</span><br><span>NSERC, BIOCAP, Environment Canada, and NRCan), GreenGrass, KoFlux, LBA, NECC, OzFlux, TCOS-Siberia, USCCC. We acknowl-</span><br><span>edge the financial support to the eddy covariance data harmonization provided by CarboEuropeIP, FAO-GTOS-TCO, iLEAPS, Max Planck</span><br><span>Institute for Biogeochemistry, National Science Foundation, University of Tuscia, Université Laval and Environment Canada and US Depart-</span><br><span>ment of Energy and the database development and technical support from Berkeley Water Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,</span><br><span>Microsoft Research eScience, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, University of California - Berkeley, University of Virginia</span></p>
Fluxes of particulate organic carbon, nitrogen and mass from the Station M abyssal time series in the northeast Pacific, (1989-2022)
<p>Overview:</p> <p>This dataset provides particulate fluxes to Station M in the NE Pacific, from 1989 to 2022. Samples were collected with McLane Parflux sequencing sediment traps deployed on moorings. Data are provided for traps 50 m above bottom and 600 m above bottom, with deployment bottom depths ranging from approximately 3900 m to 4500 m. Gaps reflect lapses in funding, weather disruptions, clogs in sediment traps, or the occasional spilled sample. Where available, GPS coordinates and ship-recorded bottom depth at deployment location are given. Where these are not available, approximate location and depth are given and noted.</p> <p> </p> <p>Methods:</p> <p>This program used McLane Parflux sequencing sediment traps. Attempts to avoid sediment trap clogs, which increasingly became an issue, included replacing manufacture-supplied plastic funnels with Teflon-coated fiberglass funnels (October 2014), doubling the size of sediment trap collection cups (from 250 ML to 500 ML starting in October 2014), and adding a function that periodically agitated material in the funnel constriction (starting in June 2015).</p> <p>Before deployment, sediment trap cups were acid-washed and filled with a preservative (mercuric chloride from 1989 to 2009, 3%–5% buffered formalin from 2009 to 2022). Formalin brine recipe followed that recommended by McLane. Following sample recovery, zooplankton that many have swum into the traps were identified visually and manually removed (KLS). Samples were returned to the lab, freeze-dried, and weighed to calculate mass flux. The freeze-dried sample was analyzed for inorganic carbon content using a coulometer (UIC), and total carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen using an elemental analyzer (Perkin-Elmer or Exeter Analytical, University of California Santa Barbara Marine Science Institute Analytical Laboratory). Dry mass was corrected for salt content using a AgNO<sub>3</sub> titration (<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064519302395#bib99">Strickland and Parsons, 1972</a>). Data [mass flux, particulate organic carbon flux, and total nitrogen flux] from the 600 mab trap were used. Gaps in this data set were infilled using the linear relationship between data from the 600 mab and 50 mab traps. Full details of these methods can be found in Baldwin et al. (<a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL101018#grl65243-bib-0002">1998</a>).</p> <p>Data provided have been quality-controlled, and only usable data are included here.</p> <p> </p> <p>References:</p> <p>Baldwin, R. J., Glatts, R. C., & Smith Jr, K. L. (1998). Particulate matter fluxes into the benthic boundary layer at a long time-series station in the abyssal NE Pacific: composition and fluxes. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 45(4-5), 643-665.</p> <p>Strickland, J.D.H., Parsons, T.R. (1972) A Practical Handbook of Seawater Analysis. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa </p> <p>Smith, K. L., Huffard, C. L., & Ruhl, H. A. (2020). Thirty-year time series study at a station in the abyssal NE Pacific: An introduction. <em>Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography</em>, <em>173</em>, 104764.</p>
ORCHIDEE Gridded Carbon Dioxide Fluxes
<p><span>ORCHIDEE simulation data (0.125°, 3-hourly, 1990-2022) over EYE-CLIMA domain (Europe 73N-35N, 25W-45E) for carbon dioxide fluxes: GPP (gross primary production - net assimilation of carbon by vegetation), RM (maintenance respiration), RG (growth respiration), RH (heterotrophic respiration), NBP (net biospheric production). Values are provided in kgCO2/m2/h for each grid cell (positive values correspond to source, negative values correspond to sink).</span></p>
Carbon and energy Eddy-covariance fluxes dataset collected at La Guette peatland (23 ha, Loiret, France)
<p>Fluxes and energy data measured by Eddy-covariance on La Guette peatland (ec1). Measurements start on 20-01-2017 and are regularly updated with new data. Data include carbon dioxide fluxes (CO2, µmol/m²/s), methane fluxes (CH4, µmol/m²/s), sensible heat fluxes (H, W/m²), latent heat fluxes (LE, W/m²) and evapotranspiration (ETR, mm/h).</p> <p>Zip file contain :</p> <ul> <li>metadata file (TOUR_en.json) which describe stations, sensors, variables and process</li> <li>csv file contain time series data for all variables by station</li> </ul> <p>Additional information on the measurement can be found in this website : <a href="https://data-snot.cnrs.fr/data-access/">https://data-snot.cnrs.fr/data-access/</a></p> <p>We also recommend to contact sno-tourbieres to talk about data acquisition and use : <a href="mailto:contact.sno-tourbieres@cnrs-orleans.fr">contact.sno-tourbieres@cnrs-orleans.fr</a></p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.